Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds a critical behavioral condition not visible in annotations: full body is returned only for company-submitted articles, while operator-curated ones return an original source link. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations and meaningfully informs the agent about response variance.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with the key content list appearing early and the important body-policy caveat in the second sentence. The bilingual repetition increases length slightly but each sentence carries distinct, necessary information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With only one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description provides enough context for an agent to call the tool correctly: it names the resource, the selection key, the returned data categories, and the conditional body behavior. Nothing critical is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the slug parameter and its format. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond restating that a slug is used to fetch the article, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'get one published press article' via a slug, and lists the exact returned components (lead, facts, related jobs, provenance). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing singular retrieval of one article by slug, versus search/list operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies the prerequisite of having a slug and, through the schema parameter note, points the agent to search_press as the source of that slug. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the singular 'one' and the slug requirement provide adequate context for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.